South West Water: Brixham Contamination

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the urgent question. I will run this short: the question for the water company is about those who are affected, not other parts of the UK—so just for clarification, it is a tight UQ.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on South West Water and Brixham’s contamination.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us remain in the south-west. I call Anthony Mangnall.

[Anthony Mangnall]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), and may I congratulate him on his maiden speech? It is somewhat frustrating, as one of the younger Members on the Conservative side of the House, to find new Members turning up who look fresher, healthier and readier for the fight. He also managed to unify the House when talking about potholes; I do not think he will find any disagreement on that subject. He comes to this place with a huge amount of experience, not just from fighting other seats, but having been Mayor of Lewisham, where he did extraordinary work on community land trusts that Members from across the House have commented on and would like to follow in our constituencies. I am sure that his family are somewhere in the Gallery and will be proud of his maiden speech. He has done very well.

I would like to make a few remarks about CPTPP, the tongue-twister that seems to have made many Members of this place fall sideways. We should start by recognising what the United Kingdom has managed to do over the last four years. We have recognised the global ambition of fulfilling our trade objectives. We have succeeded in joining CPTTP, but we have also secured deals with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as joining the Singapore digital partnership. I spend my life repeating the fact that we have made those deals; it is important that we recognise their true value, not just to GDP, but to businesses, the economy, the environment and business people across the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. It shows that we are determined to fulfil our promise and commitment to sign deals to bolster our position in the world. Of course, negotiations are also under way with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Israel and others.

In joining CPTTP, we are signing a deal with the fastest-growing region in the world. Now that we have tariff-free trade relations, the UK is set to increase trade with the countries in CPTTP by £37 billion by 2030. It is a market worth £110 billion to UK trade. With growth at 8% between 2016 and 2019, UK membership is only expected to boost that figure. Conservative figures—I say “conservative” because I feel that they are underestimates—suggest that there will be a £1.8 billion increase to GDP and an £800 million boost to take-home pay for workers. Additionally, estimates are that trade with the 11 members will increase by an average of 65%, with the west midlands, Scotland and Northern Ireland benefiting most, so I look forward to hearing the SNP’s point of view, and whether it will support the Bill.

As has already been mentioned, the point of this deal is that it allows us to have tariff-free trade in goods. CPTPP has new product regulations, expands our role and opportunities for services, and ensures mobility for business people. Digital trade will be enhanced and intellectual property enshrined, with benchmarks created by the United Kingdom, and the CPTPP has sustainability at its core. However, I would like to focus my remarks on new clauses 1 and 4.

It has been my cause, war or campaign—however one wants to phrase it—over the last four years that Parliament should do better on our trade agreements. We should spend more time scrutinising and debating them. It is always a source of frustration that when we have debates on trade, so few people show up. The ability of this House to explain the value of a trade deal to our constituents, to justify its economic value and to talk about the potential security risk is diminished when we do not have opportunities on the Floor of the House to discuss the merits or demerits of any trade agreement.

I disagree with new clauses 1 and 4 not because I am being belligerent, or because the Whips have me under the cosh, but because we need to focus on reforming the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Parliament cannot opine on every single international treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about whether accession to CPTTP should be debated on the Floor of the House. There could be no limit to that, but he did not explain—I will let him intervene if he wants to—how he would get around the royal prerogative issue; international trade agreements are not in the hands of Parliament, but in the hands of Government Ministers. That was not considered in his remarks.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. As he says, people are entitled to make their views known inside and outside this House, but threats to Members are very real, and those who comment should consider the potential effects of their words before posting injudiciously, rather than afterwards. I take this very seriously. When he texted me on Friday, I also spoke to people about security issues. I will not go into that part of it, but he can rest assured that we will defend Members on both sides of the House. Nobody should be threatened as they carry out their duties. We will certainly not forget those who were murdered carrying out their duties.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After a Westminster Hall debate on 4 July, in which the House reasserted its commitment to never forget the genocide of Srebrenica and the need to safeguard the Dayton agreement, I was deeply alarmed to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, was threatened by the President of Serbia, who said in response to her speech:

“we are already conducting an investigation against you to see what you are doing, to see who is paying you, and to see why you are putting the Republic of Serbia in such a position. If the Government of Great Britain is not willing to react, it is not a problem; we will be forced to react.”

That is an unacceptable statement from a Head of State. It is not just a threat to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton but an intimidation tactic against all MPs. Can you reassure me, Mr Speaker, that no pressure brought to bear outside this place, especially by foreign Governments, will ever endanger the security or privacy of MPs, and that the full weight of Parliament will be used to prevent and dissuade bullying tactics and ensure that MPs can speak the truth? Do you believe, Mr Speaker, that this is a moment at which the Serbian ambassador should be called to explain that position and that statement?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. It is fundamentally a constitutional principle that MPs should be able to speak freely in proceedings of this House. Threats to Members doing their jobs are totally unacceptable, whoever makes them. Beyond that, I remind him that we do not discuss operational security matters in public, and he would not expect me to go further than that, but I will say that, of course, we take this seriously, and Members should, no matter their position—be they a Back Bencher or a Chair of a Select Committee—be able to speak out openly and freely without intimidation.

As a reminder to foreign states: they have no right to threaten anyone in this House. To go a stage further, I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s request to summon the ambassador. As he knows, that decision is not a matter for me, but I have certainly echoed his request for that to take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

Q3. I might respectfully say to the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), that if she wants to know what we are doing on rental reform, she can look at the Renters (Reform) Bill that this Government are introducing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Is that your question? I think you ought to ask your question.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My question is about the Slapton line in my constituency. Can it be right that Natural England is holding back major infrastructure development in south Devon and not allowing us to keep key infrastructure being developed?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for the Slapton line. It is one of the most beautiful roads in the country. I understand that the Slapton Line Partnership, which includes Natural England and the Environment Agency, is working closely with the local community on the plans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to engage with sustainability groups ahead of COP26.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Vice-President of COP26.

Yemen: Aid Funding

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We need to get on with the list. I am going to finish at ten past.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

The Minister started his remarks by saying that money matters. Yes it does, but what this cut represents is a cut to projects, a cut to aid and a cut to assistance that will put lives in jeopardy. If the Government are so reassured by their position, then I suggest that they bring a vote to the House on this issue and they can truly gauge the strength of feeling. We have a moral duty to lead on this issue and I hope he will consider bringing a vote before it is too late.

Planning and House Building

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am sorry to have two bites of the cherry, but—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For people on the call list to have one intervention is pushing it a bit, but to have two is a little discourteous, given the amount of people who also have major constituency interests. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go ahead, fine, but he will go down the call list.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Fine, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend is making an important point about the need for infrastructure. Our manifesto said that it would be “infrastructure first”.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

You will be timed!

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s downing-in-one of a yard of ale is a very good idea, and I am happy to try to match him. Could he consider more time for Backbench debates, not least so that we can discuss the fine merits of Somerset and perhaps Devon as well, but also so that we can discuss the UK’s role in tackling gender-based violence and ending the silence that so many suffer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Anthony Mangnall

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are going to have to speed up, seriously. You are very good, but you’re too detailed.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative that was set up in 2012. Does she agree that the initiative needs to be relaunched and shown new leadership in a forthcoming conference later this year?